U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Gramalegui

Filing 24

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 21 Motion to Clarify. Granted in that the Court is clarifying the earlier Order (see attached memo)Denied in that the date stays as previously Ordered. by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 11/13/15.(ggall, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
U.S. Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher

Civil Case No.: 15-CV-2313-REB-GPG
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGORY L. GRMALEGUI,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
______________________________________________________________________

Defendant moved for an extension of time (ECF #18) to answer the complaint in this
matter. The Court granted the motion, in part, Ordering that an answer was due on November
23, 2015 rather than the November 24, 2015 date Defendant requested. Defendant now moves
for a clarification as to whether the Court really meant November 23, 2015 or not. The
clarification motion (ECF #21) has been referred to this Magistrate Judge, as was the prior
motion referenced above.

The Court really meant November 23, 2015, which is now the answer date, and here is
why:

Defendant was served in this matter on 10/20/15 (See ECF #10). The timeline for
answering is set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and began running from that date.
Defendant retained Counsel on 10/31/15. The Court found it reasonable to provide recently
hired Counsel the benefit of 21 days to answer from the date Counsel was retained. 21 days,
from 10/31/15, would expire on 11/21/15 (Saturday), so the Court rolled that date forward to
11/23/15.
Defendant argued, in its original motion on this subject, that Counsel needed additional
time to answer because of the date of retention and because Counsel had just completed a trial in
Jefferson County. The Court disregarded the press of business argument as Counsel presumably
knew and could take account of Counsel’s schedule at the time Counsel was retained. The press
of business is not good cause for a motion for extension of time. See Practice Standards – Civil
Actions for the Honorable Robert E. Blackburn, Section II. G. 3.

Dated November 13, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge